Communities want to centralise, with a well-known authority
close to home

IANA/DNS doesn't qualify

For example, info: looks more attractive than
lccn.info because the ownership of info: is
established via a document, namely RFC 4452, which doesn't depend
on any institution other than one the relevant community already trusts

In principle it also depends on the IETF not screwing with the URI
scheme registry, but somehow that doesn't feel like a risk -- perhaps because
the scale is so different to the scale of domain name space -- 64
registered URI schemes, perhaps another 50 unregistered but in use, compared to
at least millions of domain names. . .

Also, people have experience of domain names going away or getting
misappropriated, whereas there's no such experience wrt URI schemes.

8. Shift in Strategy required

Also, a more extensive analysis of the dimensions of and variant
takes on 'persistence

Framing the comparison in terms of tradeoffs (in some cases, not all)

But don't pull punches -- point out that history suggests that
commiting to a single entity, particularly a commercial one, to hold the keys
is a mistake -- five of the first six URN namespaces have been abandoned by
their owners, and as far as I can tell only info: of the
semi-private/private URI schemes has any substantial non-proprietary usage and
implementation base.

info: is the real hard case

We want to argue that dereferencing will eventually be what you
want, even if you don't start out wanting it

But info: appears to view a strong commit to
never providing resolution as a selling point.